a cynic might suggest donating money to nypd was a clever way of getting the cops 'on board'

or it's quite possible that a down to earth flesh and blood humane, compassionate being might just think that John was being a humanist and a pacifist. i must say that for myself anyway, that some of these stereotypes are just plain silly and a wee bit contrived/awkward/controversial, if you get my drift here.

Sorry, but Macca's statement is pretty irrelevant to me, since he's probably jealous of the iconic figure John has always been (and still is). Paul can live another 20 years; he'll never be an "icon" like John and he knows that.

What the "Martin Luther Lennon syndrome" concerns... well, that's bullsh** to me There is a reasonable balance between great admiration and regarding him as a saint. I think "true" fans know what I mean. Just because John may have made remarks or fun (like many other people do) about jews and gays, calling him "anti-semitic and "homophobe" is going to far IMHO.

way too far overboard, still afloat in basic beatles mythology more than anything else for my money. IMHO mediocre mass media labels are next to useless, if nothing else.

Sorry, but Macca's statement is pretty irrelevant to me, since he's probably jealous of the iconic figure John has always been (and still is). Paul can live another 20 years; he'll never be an "icon" like John and he knows that.

If Paul McCartney were murdered in the same way as John Lennon, he would have been just as big as an 'icon' in every way.

Well, Snoopy, we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion. It's just that the totality of John's views in his youth and beyond shows Lennon as being typical for a boy that grew up in Liverpool in the 40's and 50's. But he matured or evolved or grew as a person (as most of us did), and became more tolerant (at least) or enlightened (at best).

What you describe above can probably be applied to 1'000 of other men who grew up in the 40's and 50's, not only to John. And many of them probaly also grew as a person and matured, so why stress it on John only ? At least, he had the courage not to hide his prejudices and changed for the better - not everyone does.Snoopy

What you describe above can probably be applied to 1'000 of other men who grew up in the 40's and 50's, not only to John. And many of them probaly also grew as a person and matured, so why stress it on John only ? At least, he had the courage not to hide his prejudices and changed for the better - not everyone does.Snoopy

Absolutely, Snoopy. My gripe is that there IS some revisionist history going on with John, and as a public figure, his entire life is under the microscope. John did express his prejudices. But some folks (listen up, Rolling Stone editors) are trying to sweep his comments under the rug. He wasn't always peace and love.

Being a historian by profession, I've been trained to keep personal biases out of the equation. So even though I favor John over Paul, I believe 100 years from now, history will show that Paul was the better musician and, overall, the better songwriter. History will show that John was nearly as great as a songwriter. But, history will also show that during the Beatle years, their collaboration and competition brought out the best in both of them. Of course, history will also say that Paul was the cuter of the two, so what does history know?

Absolutely, Snoopy. My gripe is that there IS some revisionist history going on with John, and as a public figure, his entire life is under the microscope. John did express his prejudices. But some folks (listen up, Rolling Stone editors) are trying to sweep his comments under the rug. He wasn't always peace and love.

John never claimed having always been "peace and love"... who is such anyway ?

Yes, his life was under a microscope and many things he said and did were misinterpreted, exaggerated, written down in trash-books and often let him look worse than he really was - and this applies for many others artists too. But "true" fans should known it better I think.

So even though I favor John over Paul, I believe 100 years from now, history will show that Paul was the better musician and, overall, the better songwriter. History will show that John was nearly as great as a songwriter.

That's very subjective and only speculation, isn't it ? Just because you're historian doesn't make you a clairvoyant. But it's fun to speculate; so how about that history will show in 100 years that George actually was the most talented musician among the Beatles ? . You don't seem to be very confident about John's talent being perceived at his right value in futur, do you ?

Snoopy

Logged

nimrod

imo John was a very mixed bag, an enigma, like most kids in that period he was brought up by racist people, I grew up in Manchester England in the 60's, a city 30 miles from Liverpool and with similar values, my parents didnt like coloured immigrants coming into England from India & Pakistan etc taking jobs away from English people, they voiced their opinions just like all our neighbours did so theyre kids grew up saying similar things. Of course John also had all the other problems he had re his bad parents and grew up with a chip on his shoulder, he had a bad temper and I could imagine him kicking in a public phone box or slapping Cynthia if she answered him back etc etc on the other side he could be warm & gentle and write poetry and beautiful love songs.In the early 60's (I remember it) he was the driving force behind the biggest band in the world, he came over as the leader, he was a very funny guy in interviews and people warmed to his seemingly magnetic personality, he seemed to have a deeper side though (a certain honesty) and fans tapped into this, I think people perceived him to be an intricate genius who could denounce his work one minute as crap, but then proclaim it as great, one minute The Beatles were the greatest biggest band ever, 6 months later they were just big bastards.I think this is how his mind worked, he changed his mind about things and then his honesty (when a mike was stuck in front of him) took over and he said what he was feeling at that moment. Not always thinking who it could hurt.John was a flawed genius, but fans of him (like me) are mesmerised by him, by his personality, his songs (like Tomorrow Never Knows/Walrus/Lucy/SFForever) definitely changed popular music in the 60's imo. They may not seem that revolutionary now but back then they were incredible.

John never claimed having always been "peace and love"... who is such anyway ?

That's true, Snoopy. He didn't. As you pointed out in an earlier comment, John often said what he was thinking, even if (in retrospect), his words would be considered politically incorrect by today's standards. But that was my point: There are those who are attempting to paint John as forever "peace and love", and deliberately hiding his so-called "flaws". It's like taking the cigarette out of Paul's hand on the Abbey Road cover. What next? Giving Ringo a Photoshop nose job?

That's very subjective and only speculation, isn't it ? Just because you're historian doesn't make you a clairvoyant.

Geez, Snoopy. We either need to get together for a few beers or fisticuffs.

If I were being subjective, I'd declare Lennon right up there with Mozart. But referring back to my historian profession, there is a lot of speculation that goes on, but it is often based on how history has treated other subjects in the past. People like JFK, Churchill, et. al., are easier to appraise years later when emotional biases have faded. More to the point, read up on Buddy Holly and find out what musical historians think of him 50 years after his death. Nope, I'm not a clairvoyant, just making an educated guess. Let's say that in 100 years, you and I meet up for those beers of a fist fight. Cheers.

If I were being subjective, I'd declare Lennon right up there with Mozart. But referring back to my historian profession, there is a lot of speculation that goes on, but it is often based on how history has treated other subjects in the past. People like JFK, Churchill, et. al., are easier to appraise years later when emotional biases have faded. More to the point, read up on Buddy Holly and find out what musical historians think of him 50 years after his death. Nope, I'm not a clairvoyant, just making an educated guess. Let's say that in 100 years, you and I meet up for those beers of a fist fight. Cheers.

Sorry, but I don't understand the comparison of John with Mozart ? Or are you trying to say that John wasn't as talented as musician as Mozart ? ... and I have no idea what musical historians think now of Buddy Holly ??

Well, I'd guess that people like JFK, Churchill etc. will still be known for what they did even in 100 years, like Ceasar, Hannibal, Leonardo Da Vinci.... (and of course Justin Bieber )

By the way, as I don't drink beer I'd rather take the fist-fight... if I'm still around in 100 years

There are those who are attempting to paint John as forever "peace and love", and deliberately hiding his so-called "flaws".

Yes, but "those" are in the minority, aren't they ? Just by reading through this topic you should be aware that the majority likes to point out John's so-called flaws again and again... much more than any other Beatle.

Paul for instance always was much more smarter in hiding his flaws than John, though also less open. Further, he has the big advantage to be still alive, so it's more difficult to spit on him.

I think people perceived him to be an intricate genius who could denounce his work one minute as crap, but then proclaim it as great, one minute The Beatles were the greatest biggest band ever, 6 months later they were just big bastards.John was a flawed genius, but fans of him (like me) are mesmerised by him, by his personality, his songs (like Tomorrow Never Knows/Walrus/Lucy/SFForever) definitely changed popular music in the 60's imo.